Next Time, Stick With "World's Greatest Boss"

Tim Cavanaugh | February 13, 2006

Just when you thought the collision of free speech and wounded sensibilities couldn't get any dumber, Starbucks lands in hot latte over the quotable quotes on its "The Way I See It" cups. Concerned Women for America threaten a boycott in retaliation for a pullquote from Armistead "Tales of the City" Maupin that attempts to convert teens to the homosexual lifestyle. Starbucks responds by promising to add one of Rick "Purpose-Driven Life" Warren's (favorable) quotes about God to an upcoming cup. But the problem doesn't end there, as Greg Beato reports:

Call it a craven attempt to mollify miffed Christians if you will, but since Starbucks' 33 million weekly customers include plenty of knuckle-dragging evolutionists, too, it's also a bold, self-destructive move. Indeed, what happens when people who have no interest whatsoever in what Jesus would brew get a shot of Warren's deep-roasted evangelism in their morning lattes? Starbucks will no doubt plead objective neutrality: It doesn't believe in God any more than it believes in happy gay men -- it just wants to carry on the great coffeehouse tradition of (inoffensive, conflict-free) conversation and debate.

But of course it's not that easy anymore. In these extremely partisan times, objective neutrality simply means that, eventually, everyone ends up hating you.

Former Reason editor Virginia Postrel joined the humble company of Maupin, Warren, Moby, Rufus Wainwright, Michael Medved, and the president of the Atlantic Salmon Federation when one of her aphorisms made it onto a Starbucks cup.

Comments

|2.13.06 @ 6:11AM|#

Oh my. I once worked for a slightly lower-class coffee shop chain in New England (think Dunkin' Donuts, not Starbucks).

The owner/CEO found Jesus in 1993, and overnight every damn thing in the store, from donut boxes to our pay stubs, had a biblical quote on it. This includes the cups.

Most customers laughed the quotes off, if they noticed them at all. A few - Christians themselves, I imagine - complimented the CEO on his bravery. And those who were offended simply went to Dunkin' Donuts. This chain is now out of business, and sometimes I wonder if the cups had anything to do with that.

Though I did have a customer come in once who said he loved our coffee but hated the quotes. He would only buy if I could offer a quote-free cup. I couldn't - so I scratched the text off with a black Sharpie, instead. The customer was happy enough with that solution.

Perhaps it would be more sensible for Starbucks to stock Sharpies over by the cream and Sweet n Low, then to try to make a niche cup for every whining group that comes along.

|2.13.06 @ 8:01AM|#

it has the f-word. i think we're focusing on the wrong offense.

|2.13.06 @ 8:17AM|#

VCA, i believe the quote is "life's too damn short."

|2.13.06 @ 8:44AM|#

How about an Sensitive, inoffensive aphorism:

"Coffee - a. Any of various tropical African shrubs or trees of the genus Coffea, especially C. arabica, widely cultivated in the tropics for their seeds that are dried, roasted, and ground to prepare a stimulating aromatic drink. b. The only good thing invented by Ragheads."

Taylor|2.13.06 @ 8:47AM|#

It's just another SPOILS SYSTEM -- everyone wants in.

What about libertarians? Shouldn't we get a quote, too? Perhaps Hayek, or Rand?

Just kidding, I'm not that kind of person.

|2.13.06 @ 8:51AM|#

Taylor-

We got Virginia Postrel.


Mr. F Le Mur-

I would call that second part racist, but then this thread would go over 170 comments :-)

|2.13.06 @ 9:05AM|#

"Promoting the homosexual lifestyle"? So this is where we've gone: anything that mentions homosexuality in anything but a scornful light is construed as "promoting" homosexuality.

On the other hand, I see this as a good thing. If we can distract these crackpots with such inconsequential things as disposable coffee cups, then I'm all for it. I'd much rather focus their "ho-lay" energies on this tripe than something that actually matters.

McDonalds should have an Anti-Christ happy meal. Burger King should offer the commemorative "We Love Fags" value meal. Chili's should introduce a new abortion-themed menu section. It'd be like flies on shit, man. Just like the "flypaper" theory over in Iraq, but with christian loonies instead of muslim loonies. I think we're on to something here...

|2.13.06 @ 9:07AM|#

Evan-

See, if the evangelicals are scared away from fast food then they'll live longer. Which means that the most avid voting bloc (old folks) will skew evangelical.

You need to think a few steps ahead here! ;)

|2.13.06 @ 9:10AM|#

I thought that being Saved and Finding a New Life in Jesus was supposed to bring people happiness and inner peace, rather than twisting your soul with offense at things as minor as the words on a coffee cup.

Nick Gillespie|2.13.06 @ 9:33AM|#

Btw, one of the ironies of the Way I See It promotion is that the heat sleeves routinely put over the hot cups obscures the messages.

|2.13.06 @ 9:48AM|#

Damn, Gillespie beat me too it. I do have to wonder how many people will even see the quotes, since the usual thing to do is drink the coffee, then throw the whole package-cup and heat sleeve-in the garbage.

|2.13.06 @ 9:54AM|#

Who actually looks at their coffe cups anyway? I'm too busy getting my caffeine fix and trying to drive to work to bother searching the cup for either inspirational or potentially offensive material.

I read the actual quote and fail to see how it either converts teens to homosexuality, or furthers a gay agenda (unless by "agenda" they mean acknowledging that there are gay people).

|2.13.06 @ 9:55AM|#

I thought that being Saved and Finding a New Life in Jesus was supposed to bring people happiness and inner peace

Um, actually I think it was supposed to bring eternal life. I don't know if that comes with an eternal job or not, but if I end up in that kind of company I hope I get to take a nap once in a while.

|2.13.06 @ 9:57AM|#

I think one of the sayings should be is this coffee way too hot or what?

|2.13.06 @ 9:58AM|#

Yes, Doug, it's supposed to bring you eternal life, but it's also supposed to be a happy, contented eternity, not an eternity spent with a stick up your ass because you see the wrong quote on a coffee cup.

|2.13.06 @ 10:02AM|#

I don't see anything in the bible against having a stick up your ass.... (If it's up your ass in a gay way, I think it's implicitly forbidden, but the bible is silent on hetero ass-sticking.)

|2.13.06 @ 10:04AM|#

So Starbucks has found a way to communicate to a niche market? Those greedy, evil capitalists!

|2.13.06 @ 10:17AM|#

Thoreau:

Good point, that. But you also need to take into account the added stress from all the "controversial material" that inevitably leads to hypertension, which leads to an early demise.


Jennifer:

Happiness and inner peace? From a cult that teaches you that you are an eternal sinner and the only way to save yourself is to put your love and faith in some imaginary hoobajoob ghost in the sky?

There's a reason why some of the bloodiest and most dispicable things in human history were in the name of one salvationist religion or another---and it has something to do with the fact that your (admittedly tongue-in-cheek) statement above is generally far, far from the truth.

|2.13.06 @ 10:29AM|#

Evan, I didn't say it does bring you inner peace, only that it's supposed to. You know, "let go and let God," and "there was only one set of footprints because Jesus was carrying me"?

Fred|2.13.06 @ 10:32AM|#

Here's the full quote:

My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too damn short.

Good thing I didn't read that when I wasan impressionable teen, otherwise I would now be Teh Gay. More seriously, the Professional Complainers aren't really upset by the quote; they're upset because Starbucks sponsors Gay Pride parades and Planned Parenthood. Read the first link - they think Starbucks is Putting Children at Risk because there were children's activities at the Gay Pride Parade. Because in the mind of the AFA and CWA, Gay=Pedophile.

Unfortunately, as long as businesses keep caving to the Stick-Up-the-Ass brigades, the more the complainers will keep complaining.

|2.13.06 @ 10:41AM|#

I've never known a member of CWA who wasn't a candidate for Queer Eye for the Uptight Chick. All big, fluffy blond hair and flower prints. Maybe they object to the Maupin quote because they're sensitive about needing a make-over?

|2.13.06 @ 10:42AM|#

Let's not forget "No Jesus, no peace, know Jesus, know peace."

|2.13.06 @ 10:43AM|#

Maybe they object to the Maupin quote because they're sensitive about needing a make-over?

Either that, or they hate guys who are prettier than they are.

|2.13.06 @ 11:01AM|#

"Btw, one of the ironies of the Way I See It promotion is that the heat sleeves routinely put over the hot cups obscures the messages."

And thank the gods for it, too. I like my morning coffee with a shot of cream, no sugar, and hold the pseudo-intellectual douche baggery.

I have, on more than one occassion, entertained the notion of getting a bunch of adhesive stickers and printing up my own versions of "The Way I See It" that could, at a moment's notice, be slapped over the ill-informed, holier-than though mind-dribblings of some helmet-wearing twit.

|2.13.06 @ 11:02AM|#

I've never known a member of CWA who wasn't a candidate for Queer Eye for the Uptight Chick. All big, fluffy blond hair and flower prints.

Oddly, I always picture the "concerned women" types as mean spirited versions of Edie McClurg.

|2.13.06 @ 11:15AM|#

Thank the good Lord I only have to spend one more day with you heathens!

|2.13.06 @ 11:20AM|#

Jennifer,

"Evan, I didn't say it does bring you inner peace, only that it's supposed to. You know, "let go and let God," and "there was only one set of footprints because Jesus was carrying me"?"

Hehe, supposed to. And the government is supposed to make our lives better and know what's best for us better than we do. That whole line about peace, etc., is a ploy. The only peace you get from salvationist religion is the "peace" from letting go of your problems, and instead just throwing up your arms and exclaiming, "It's all okoay, because it's the will of my hoobajoob-ghost-in-the-sky God! Why pay my bills or worry about science? It's god's will, so let it be!". Yes, letting go of yourself and your independence can be "peaceful" in a way---but that peace is just a hole where your autonomy used to be... and it is consumed over time by such nagging things as worrying about whether people you'll never meet are sticking their wee-wee's into each other's asses.

That's why I find Mike Judge's "Office Space" to be somewhat a commentary on "letting go" a la salvationist religions. Maybe I'm reaching, but, when you see Peter just stop worrying, stop caring about things, it smacks of the whole "Why worry? Jesus is in control!" line of thought.

|2.13.06 @ 11:22AM|#

"I like my morning coffee with a shot of cream, no sugar, and hold the pseudo-intellectual douche baggery."

Well, yeah, but what about late afternoon and after dinner?

|2.13.06 @ 11:30AM|#

Evan:

"Promoting the homosexual lifestyle"? So this is where we've gone: anything that mentions homosexuality in anything but a scornful light is construed as "promoting" homosexuality.

These are people who still think that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in six, 24-hour, days. What do you expect?

Thus, we see the danger of allowing old farts the right to vote.

Mediageek:

And thank the gods for it, too. I like my morning coffee with a shot of cream, no sugar, and hold the pseudo-intellectual douche baggery.

I know what you mean. I had the bad luck of drawing that gorram Jonah Goldberg quote cup each time I went. Reading the same right-wing solipism (When translated from Conservative to English, it read: "Authority and tradition rule! Those who pinko commies and homos who question it are the real tyrannts!) get's old really fast.

|2.13.06 @ 11:31AM|#

"They rake me over the coals for wearing fishbowls on my tits but I'm trying to be a real person."

|2.13.06 @ 11:36AM|#

So, let's see, not only is Reason against censorship of offensive speech, you're also now against boycotts and other non-coercive means of combatting offensive speech.

I'm just wondering, Nick Gillespie et al, if your attitude would be the same if NARAL had boycotted Starbucks over a similarly intense anti-abortion quote on their cups.

|2.13.06 @ 11:43AM|#

"Promoting the homosexual lifestyle"? So this is where we've gone: anything that mentions homosexuality in anything but a scornful light is construed as "promoting" homosexuality.

Not quite, Evan. The quote does not merely mention homosexuality, it says that it is not something to be ashamed of or repressed.

Try replacing homosexuality with pedophilia in the quote and you'll see how it reads to someone who thinks homosexual behavior is immoral.

|2.13.06 @ 11:44AM|#

So, let's see, not only is Reason against censorship of offensive speech, you're also now against boycotts and other non-coercive means of combatting offensive speech.

Or maybe they're just sick of people who find every last little thing offensive. Why are you trying so hard to play the victim here, Crimethink?

|2.13.06 @ 11:45AM|#

"Being a libertarian means never having to say 'Man, these guys are assholes.'"

|2.13.06 @ 11:48AM|#

Evan,

Burger King doesn't need to add a "We Love Fags" value meal. Have you seen the lumberjack commercial for their Meatnormous breakfast sandwich:

Voiceover a shot of the product: "Meat... on top of meat... on top of meat"
followed by video of a lumberjack "logrolling" with the King, and finally the tag-line "Wake up with the King".

|2.13.06 @ 11:48AM|#

I'm pretty sure that Nick Gillespie supports their right to boycott. He just wants to exercise his right to say that he thinks the boycott is dumb.

|2.13.06 @ 11:49AM|#

Jennifer, I bloody well hope not!

Being libertarian means that I get to say "These guys are assholes, but they have a complete right to their assaholic ways."

|2.13.06 @ 11:52AM|#

Being libertarian means that I get to say "These guys are assholes, but they have a complete right to their assaholic ways."

But Mediageek, if you call them assholes Crimethink might get upset. I mean, replace "homosexual" with "child rapist" and see how YOU feel about it.

|2.13.06 @ 11:52AM|#

I didn't even realize they printed shit on the cups. That's what you get for bringing your own cup.

|2.13.06 @ 11:54AM|#

My bad. Cavanaugh started this thread. I only mentioned Gillespie because crimethink did.

It's all crimethink's fault!

So, for the record:

I support the right of Starbucks to put what they want on their cups. I support the right of others to boycott those cups. I support anybody's right to criticize the boycott. I support the right to criticize those who criticize the boycott. I support the right to cancel your subscription to a magazine whose writers criticize those who boycott the cups. And so forth.

And I'm pretty sure the staff of Reason would agree. It's just that these disclaimers get in the way when all you really want to say is "Hey, check this out, I think it's dumb."

|2.13.06 @ 11:57AM|#

Q: How many homophobes does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: That's not funny, dammit!

|2.13.06 @ 11:57AM|#

Try replacing homosexuality with pedophilia in the quote and you'll see how it reads to someone who thinks homosexual behavior is immoral.

Once again, we have an upstanding member of the Christian community deliberately confusing sexual act between consenting adults, with sexual abuse of a child.

You know crimethink, I think you're a real pile of shit.

|2.13.06 @ 11:59AM|#

Jennifer and thoreau,

But my question is, would you consider boycotting a company that was printing "God hates fags", "A woman's place in the home", or "Black people are lazy and stupid" on their coffee cups? I have a feeling your attitude about boycotts over offensive speech would change real quick.

|2.13.06 @ 12:00PM|#

Once again, we have an upstanding member of the Christian community deliberately confusing sexual act between consenting adults, with sexual abuse of a child.

Oh, come on, Akira. Try replacing "homosexual" with "serial killer" and you'll understand why some people are getting so upset.

|2.13.06 @ 12:01PM|#

But my question is, would you consider boycotting a company that was printing "God hates fags", "A woman's place in the home", or "Black people are lazy and stupid" on their coffee cups? I have a feeling your attitude about boycotts over offensive speech would change real quick.

Of course I'd boycott such a company, just as I would boycott a company dumb enough to equate "I hate black people" with "homosexuality is not evil."

|2.13.06 @ 12:03PM|#

crimethink-

I think that some boycotts are more intelligent than others, just as I think that some free speech is dumb and other free speech is smart. I respect everybody's right to engage in a boycott and/or free speech no matter what I think of underlying content or motives, but I reserve my right to opine on the merits of the speech or boycott in question, without questioning the right to engage in it.

I will say this much: I'm always happier when people engage in boycotts rather than demanding a law against something they don't like.

|2.13.06 @ 12:04PM|#

Serious question, Crimethink: if Reason made fun of a white-supremacist organization who boycotted Starbcuks for quoting Martin Luther King, would you be criticizing Reason and saying "Well, Reasonoids, try replacing 'all races are equal' with 'hooray for pedophilia' and THEN see how you feel"?

|2.13.06 @ 12:05PM|#

Akira,

I'm not confusing them. I'm illustrating how the quote reads to someone who thinks the activity in question is immoral.

But, then again, I should have known that most of this forum's denizens are more interested in picking on Christians than trying to see things from a Christian's POV for a few seconds.

|2.13.06 @ 12:06PM|#

"But Mediageek, if you call them assholes Crimethink might get upset. I mean, replace "homosexual" with "child rapist" and see how YOU feel about it."

Crimethink is an asshole, then. But he's certainly free to be as big of an asshole as he likes.

|2.13.06 @ 12:08PM|#

So, let's see, not only is Reason against censorship of offensive speech, you're also now against boycotts and other non-coercive means of combatting offensive speech.
Something being legal and accepted in society isn't the same as not being idiotic.

People have the right to combat "offensive speech", the same way they have a right to tatoo "I am an idiot" on their forehead. It is a free country (well, no, but lets pretend). But that is not enough for me to respect it.

I for one have had enough of indignant offended people. This whole "you offended me" act has gone too far. If your political group is boycotting a company because of speech, then there is a pretty good chance that your politics are intollerant facist bullshit.

|2.13.06 @ 12:08PM|#

"I'm not confusing them. I'm illustrating how the quote reads to someone who thinks the activity in question is immoral."

Then feel free to boycott Starbucks. Just because something offends you doesn't mean I have to care.

Geeze.

|2.13.06 @ 12:09PM|#

I support the right to criticize those who criticize those who criticize those who criticize those who criticize those who boycott something that they don't like.

|2.13.06 @ 12:12PM|#

But, then again, I should have known that most of this forum's denizens are more interested in picking on Christians than trying to see things from a Christian's POV for a few seconds.

I was once a Christian myself, asshole. I know how you people think, or rather, I know how you people DON'T think.

|2.13.06 @ 12:13PM|#

But, then again, I should have known that most of this forum's denizens are more interested in picking on Christians than trying to see things from a Christian's POV for a few seconds.

I know some Christians who don't hate gays. I even know some Christians who are gay. But clearly you aren't talking about their POVs, so lets clarify your statement:

I should have known that most of this forum's denizens are more interested in picking on Christians than trying to see things from a Small-minded, hate-filled Christian's POV for a few seconds.

|2.13.06 @ 12:14PM|#

Be nice, Akira. Crimethink is actually a pretty decent guy, he just gets a little touchy now and then.

|2.13.06 @ 12:14PM|#

I'm illustrating how the quote reads to someone who thinks the activity in question is immoral. But, then again, I should have known that most of this forum's denizens are more interested in picking on Christians than trying to see things from a Christian's POV for a few seconds.

Crimethink, I have no doubt that people who hate homosexuals are very sincere in their beliefs. And I have no doubt that people who oppose interracial marriage are equally sincere in believing that it is wrong. Hell, I'm sure Bin Laden sincerely believes that destroying the World Trade Center was the right thing to do.

But I do not and never have believed that just because a belief is sincere means that it should therefore be above reproach.

|2.13.06 @ 12:15PM|#

Jennifer,

You're right, I probably wouldn't criticize Reason in that case. This topic hits a lot closer to home than the other would.

However, even in your hypothetical case, I would understand why white supremacists would launch such a boycott. I disagree with their racism, not with their strategy of boycotting over speech they find offensive.

|2.13.06 @ 12:19PM|#

But I do not and never have believed that just because a belief is sincere means that it should therefore be above reproach.

But you are not reproaching their belief that homosexuality is immoral, you are reproaching their decision to boycott because of speech they find offensive. Geez, I thought it was religious people who had a problem with nuance....

|2.13.06 @ 12:19PM|#

However, even in your hypothetical case, I would understand why white supremacists would launch such a boycott.

And I'm sure everybody here understands why the homophobes are boycotting Starbucks. We're just saying they're stupid bigots for doing so.

|2.13.06 @ 12:21PM|#

But you are not reproaching their belief that homosexuality is immoral, you are reproaching their decision to boycott because of speech they find offensive. Geez, I thought it was religious people who had a problem with nuance....

I'm reproaching a boycott based upon a bigoted belief. There's a difference between 'nuance' and 'hairsplitting.'

|2.13.06 @ 12:22PM|#

"But clearly you aren't talking about their POVs, so lets clarify your statement:

"I should have known that most of this forum's denizens are more interested in picking on Christians than trying to see things from a Small-minded, hate-filled Christian's POV for a few seconds."


Exactly. And the answer to the more accurate version of your question, Crimethink, is that we already hear enough from "victimized" "Christians" every fucking day. They voted Shrub into office. And they boycott Starbucks for supporting someone's right to say that one shouldn't feel ashamed of one's sexual orientation. And they censor the word "damn" because they think that's offensive.
Frankly, I don't think too many people here give one fuck about what that type of person has to say.

|2.13.06 @ 12:22PM|#

Akira,

That's it, I'm boycotting you. I'm never going to drink your coffee! ;-)

P.S. don't believe what thoreau said. I didn't earn my title of Papist Avenger by being a nice guy, after all.

|2.13.06 @ 12:26PM|#

I probably wouldn't criticize Reason in that case. This topic hits a lot closer to home than the other would.

Why is that? Those of us who advocate equal rights for gay people don't think that you, personally, should therefore be required to sleep with a gay man who finds you attractive. Nor do you have to attend any gay weddings you might be invited to, or even send the happy couple a gift. You don't have to invite gay people to your house or your dinner parties (you don't even have to HAVE dinner parties if you find them suspiciously limp-wristed). . . seriously, why are you so bothered by someone saying "Yes, I'm gay, and I don't want to spend my life hiding in the closet?"

I understand that your religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin. But I'm sure your God is powerful enough to punish these sinners on his own; He doesn't need any help from you.

Captain Holly|2.13.06 @ 12:27PM|#

Frankly, I don't think too many people here give one fuck about what that type of person has to say.

Which begs the question of why the hell you bothered to comment in the first place...

|2.13.06 @ 12:34PM|#

I thought that being Saved and Finding a New Life in Jesus was supposed to bring people happiness and inner peace, rather than twisting your soul with offense at things as minor as the words on a coffee cup.

Comment by: Jennifer at February 13, 2006 09:10 AM


Yes, Doug, it's supposed to bring you eternal life, but it's also supposed to be a happy, contented eternity, not an eternity spent with a stick up your ass because you see the wrong quote on a coffee cup.

Comment by: Jennifer at February 13, 2006 09:58 AM


Or maybe they're just sick of people who find every last little thing offensive. Why are you trying so hard to play the victim here, Crimethink?

Comment by: Jennifer at February 13, 2006 11:44 AM


Now, let's play "spot the hypocrite":

Of course I'd boycott such a company, just as I would boycott a company dumb enough to equate "I hate black people" with "homosexuality is not evil."

Comment by: Jennifer at February 13, 2006 12:01 PM

|2.13.06 @ 12:35PM|#

The way it see it, people can boycott whatever they want, but I'll reserve my right to think "It's just a coffee cup. One of a hundred and fifty possible cups at that" and dismiss the whole thing as silly.

We seem to have a whole segment of society whose existence revolves around finding things to protest( or claim persecution, insensitivity, bigotry, conspiracy, etc.) about, and the phenomenon isn't confined to Christian groups. Think about it, right now there's someone out there scouring through vast volumes of material(books, movies, video games, fast food labels) looking for something to offend the sensitivities of his group. It seems like such a waste.

fyodor|2.13.06 @ 12:37PM|#

I would understand why white supremacists would launch such a boycott.

I find interesting how the word "understand" gets used in such a context. Very often you hear people say, well even if you don't agree with them, at least understand them, or some such. And in fact, when you look up the word "understand", you see that it can mean to comprehend, but it can also mean to sympathize with. When the word is used as crimethink is using it (and he's not the only one who uses it this way), the two meanings get blurred, I think.

So to crimethink: do you want us to comprehend why some people find this quote offensive? Or do you want us to sympathize with why they do? If the former, I really don't think that was ever in question. If the former, I don't think substituting some other objectionable behavior would change our sympathies.

To be fair, perhaps crimethink's objections are related to Cavanaugh framing the issue in terms of sensitivity to speech, when in fact the sensitivity in question flows predictably from the position of the "miffed Christians" to begin with. That said, I personally see the original post as a "laughing at the state of the world" kind of post that pokes as much fun at Starbucks for trying to mollify the critics of the original post by offering something they would like more, which of course may just piss off more people. I believe the headline of the blog post backs my belief that Cavanaugh is not precisely taking Starbucks's side in the matter as it seems to suggest they were foolish to get in this position in the first place.

|2.13.06 @ 12:37PM|#

Crimethink, what exactly is hypocritical about me criticizing someone who hates homosexuals, and also saying I'd boycott someone who hate blacks? In both cases, I'm demonstrating a low opinion of bigotry.

|2.13.06 @ 12:41PM|#

"Think about it, right now there's someone out there scouring through vast volumes of material(books, movies, video games, fast food labels) looking for something to offend the sensitivities of his group. It seems like such a waste."

What are you talking about?

|2.13.06 @ 12:42PM|#

Jennifer,

Maybe it hits closer to home because I am a Christian and not a white supremacist. It is natural for someone to respond to criticisms of their own group, is it not?

And I really don't want to get into a holy war here about homosexuality -- the first few times, it was kind of fun to have everyone pile on to me, but it gets old quick -- but suffice it to say, I wish to discourage homosexual behavior by non-coercive means, and certainly oppose promoting it by coercive means (ie, writing special priveleges for gays into the law).

|2.13.06 @ 12:45PM|#

And I really don't want to get into a holy war here about homosexuality -- the first few times, it was kind of fun to have everyone pile on to me

Selective quotation is fun!!!!!

:)

|2.13.06 @ 12:46PM|#

"the first few times, it was kind of fun to have everyone pile on to me, but it gets old quick"

That'th tho fabulouth! I've alwayth liked the repreththed oneth the betht!

|2.13.06 @ 12:46PM|#

"the first few times, it was kind of fun to have everyone pile on to me"

So the truth comes out!!!

|2.13.06 @ 12:47PM|#

"They rake me over the coals for wearing fishbowls on my tits but I'm trying to be a real person."

Dale I know exactly how you feel.

|2.13.06 @ 12:49PM|#

The $64,000/Who Wants To Be A Millionaire question I have is... Why aren't these same people boycotting all the theater chains that show Brokeback Mountain? Do they have limited boycotting resources? Or are they just not much in the way of moviegoers. Or maybe they've decided they can't fight hollywood?

|2.13.06 @ 12:51PM|#

"I wish to discourage homosexual behavior by non-coercive means,"

Why do you care one way or another, as long as you're not being forced to engage in it? Who's it hurting (besides your ideal of a "moral" society)?

"certainly oppose promoting it by coercive means (ie, writing special priveleges for gays into the law)."

What special priveleges? The only ones I can think of are proposals to give unmarried gay couples more rights than unmarried straight couples, but those proposals are quickly revised to extend rights to unmarried straight couples. No laws have been passed, that I know of, giving gays "special priveleges."

|2.13.06 @ 12:53PM|#

Jennifer,

Uyyy, once again, you are not criticizing their "bigotry" in any of those posts -- you are criticizing the fact that they were offended by something on a coffee cup. And then you admitted that you, too, could be offended by something on a coffee cup.


fyodor,

I was intending "understand" in its "comprehend" sense. And I was arguing with some of the comments here more so than with the original post. Also, given the reactions of some of the posters (wondering why Christians would "get a stick up their ass" about a coffee cup comes to mind), I'm not so sure that they truly comprehended why this group decided to boycott.

|2.13.06 @ 12:55PM|#

Maybe it hits closer to home because I am a Christian and not a white supremacist. It is natural for someone to respond to criticisms of their own group, is it not?

But nobody is criticizing "your group," just a small subgroup of it. Thoreau is a Catholic, but seems to understand that he's not the one being criticized here. You don't see Mo claiming that we're insulting his Arab/Muslim heritage when we criticize al-Qaeda terrorists, do you? I don't get pissy when Reason criticizes Andrea Dworkin-type feminists. And I don't take it personally when people criticize certain aspects of American foreign policy, even though I'm an American myself.

Nobody here is shooting at you, so why are you so eager to dive in front of the bullets and then scream about your victimhood?

fyodor|2.13.06 @ 12:55PM|#

Personally, I think if some business was in some way supporting white supremacy, I think I might be a lot less likely to patronize the business just cause it would make me feel rather icky (though I should point out that I would not rule out such patronization, only that it might very well affect my decision).

But I probably would not try to organize a boycott. Nor join one. Maybe that means I'm lazy about my personal convictions. And maybe it means I'm not interested in foisting my personal convictions on others and that the truth will likely win out without my tyring to force the issue cause as often as not, you push in one direction and the other side will push in the other.

That said, I would like to think that if the issue were serious and immediate enough, I may be willing to be more active.

So maybe Concerned Women for America, by this standard, are busybodies, and maybe they see the matter as being just THAT serious. Personally, even setting aside my opinion of their opinion about homosexuality, it seems like plugging the never-ending holes in the dike at this point. But then, maybe that's not setting aside my opinion of their opinion. As crimethink's response to Jennifer about what he would think about making fun of a white supremicist boycott shows, it's hard to separate our opinions out in such a matter.

|2.13.06 @ 12:56PM|#

"Uyyy, once again, you are not criticizing their "bigotry" in any of those posts -- you are criticizing the fact that they were offended by something on a coffee cup. And then you admitted that you, too, could be offended by something on a coffee cup."

Wait, so the threshold for being offended is that something must be printed on a coffee cup?

|2.13.06 @ 1:00PM|#

And incidentally, where is it written that one cannot criticize protestations that they think are stupid?

|2.13.06 @ 1:00PM|#

the first few times, it was kind of fun to have everyone pile on to me, but it gets old quick

Poor choice of words... 8-O

This may be enough to teach me to use the preview button, but I doubt it. ;-)

|2.13.06 @ 1:01PM|#

Uh, is there anybody? Anybody at all? who thinks that the coffee cups are actually kind of cool? I never drink Starbucks but I like this idea. I like getting different people's (INDIVIDUAL, SINGLE, INDEPENDENT people's) various views on the world. And I wouldn't be offended by the "gay" one OR the "Christian" one, nor any assorment of other individual opinions. Isn't the point to make people think?

Geesh! Just give me my freaking espresso and get me the hell outta here!

|2.13.06 @ 1:03PM|#

Linquist, I wouldn't have a problem with it if they'd stop quoting people who are demonstrably dumber than myself.

|2.13.06 @ 1:06PM|#

You know, Crimethink, I know you oppose abortion, but the next time there's an abortion-clinic bombing, or an abortion doctor is murdered, I hope I can say something like "Damn, I hate those 'pro-life' killers" without your thinking that I am accusing you, personally, of being a bomber or as assassin.

|2.13.06 @ 1:07PM|#

You know, Crimethink, I know you oppose abortion, but the next time there's an abortion-clinic bombing, or an abortion doctor is murdered, I hope I can say something like "Damn, I hate those 'pro-life' killers" without your thinking that I am accusing you, personally, of being a bomber or assassin.

|2.13.06 @ 1:07PM|#

You know, Crimethink, I know you oppose abortion, but the next time there's an abortion-clinic bombing, or an abortion doctor is murdered, I hope I can say something like "Damn, I hate those 'pro-life' killers" without your thinking that I am accusing you, personally, of being a bomber or assassin.

|2.13.06 @ 1:07PM|#

The question is, if Starbucks wants to offend a religion, why not just make it the Mormons?

|2.13.06 @ 1:08PM|#

Ahh, mediageek. Most days I'd agree with you. But I've learned a few things from some dumb people just by letting my brain react to them. Sometimes they have insight they don't even realize they have.

I think everyone needs to lighten up. No more caffeine for the lot of you! :-)

fyodor|2.13.06 @ 1:11PM|#

Jennifer, crimethink has a point, witness your post:

Yes, Doug, it [Christianity]'s supposed to bring you eternal life, but it's also supposed to be a happy, contented eternity, not an eternity spent with a stick up your ass because you see the wrong quote on a coffee cup.

This would seem to imply that you think they are over reacting, not just holding an objectionable position on the issue. And/or you are simply saying that Christians should rightly have such inner peace that they never need object to what they see as bad things in the world, which I think is a rather self-serving theological assertion on your part.

|2.13.06 @ 1:14PM|#

This would seem to imply that you think they are over reacting, not just holding an objectionable position on the issue.

Or it could imply that Crimethink, in his perpetual quest for victimhood, is taking seriously a comment which was meant to be sarcastic.

|2.13.06 @ 1:17PM|#

The question is, if Starbucks wants to offend a religion, why not just make it the Mormons?

So now "not hating gays" is equal to "offending a religion"?

|2.13.06 @ 1:26PM|#

Way to respond to my last post, crimethink.

|2.13.06 @ 1:27PM|#

Whatever, I'm going to have to call it quits on this discussion. I have better things to do with my time, like boycott places that I would never patronize anyway... ;-)

|2.13.06 @ 1:36PM|#

Poor Crimethink. Everybody is out to get him, and he runs out of time to post just when people start asking him the hard questions.

|2.13.06 @ 1:38PM|#

"I'm going to have to call it quits on this discussion. I have better things to do with my time,"

That's what I thought. You got called out on your bigoted superstitions and logical fallacies so you run away with your tail between your legs.

|2.13.06 @ 1:38PM|#

The question is, if Starbucks wants to offend a religion, why not just make it the Mormons?

Maybe they already do. By selling coffee!

And maybe you're not aware of the fact, but Mormons are Christians. And the ones I've known are plenty offended by homosexuality. But since they don't go to Starbucks and buy coffee they get to stay out of this one. :)

And as near as I can tell the only Christians who are "offended" by this are the noisy, intolerant minority (though sizable) who feel they have to endlessly harp on this subject. The fact of the matter is that I know Christians who believe that the practice of homosexuality is a sin, but believe that sin is a matter best left between the sinner and God, who is the only proper judge in these matters.

Those are probably the Christians I prefer since they leave me alone to be the atheist sinner that I am instead of constantly urging me to "come into the light".

fyodor|2.13.06 @ 1:38PM|#

taking seriously a comment which was meant to be sarcastic.

Well, jokes are often used as vehicles to make a more serious point, especially on a political website. I would have thought you were implying that Christians were over reacting myself, but obviously I can't prove that.

I will say that it's easy to think someone's over reacting when you don't share their concern in the first place. And I'll also say that I think the fewer who share CWA's concern in this regard, the better.

|2.13.06 @ 1:42PM|#

Let's be fair to crimethink: I think everybody's already made it pretty clear what they think about this and nobody is going to change anybody's minds. But if he hung around we could spend a couple hundred posts beating some sort of minutiae to death, and maybe some people could accuse each other of hypocrisy or inconsistency or bigotry or whatever.

All in all, I think it made sense for crimethink to bail.

|2.13.06 @ 1:46PM|#

I would have thought you were implying that Christians were over reacting myself, but obviously I can't prove that.

Yes, I do think people are overreacting when their thought processes go as follows:

Starbucks is tolerant of people I find intolerable. Therefore, that means Starbucks is persecuting me! Why does Starbucks have to be so mean?

I think it made sense for crimethink to bail.

Yeah, because if he had to answer Andy's question about what "special privileges" gay people get, he might have to admit that he was making stuff up.

|2.13.06 @ 1:49PM|#

I wish to discourage homosexual behavior by non-coercive means,

Why?

and certainly oppose promoting it by coercive means (ie, writing special priveleges for gays into the law).

"Promoting it." Yeah, I know that as soon as Lawrence was decided, I ran out and sucked a guy's cock. And when gay marriage is legal in Virginia, I'm dumping my wife and getting some hot man-love as soon as I can.

|2.13.06 @ 1:52PM|#

when gay marriage is legal in Virginia, I'm dumping my wife and getting some hot man-love as soon as I can.

I hope so. You'll be required to do it. That's what "coercive" means.

fyodor|2.13.06 @ 1:57PM|#

Starbucks is tolerant of people I find intolerable. Therefore, that means Starbucks is persecuting me! Why does Starbucks have to be so mean?

I'm guessing the CWA could represent their views a little better than that. For one thing, I see no reason to think they take the coffee mug quote as a personal affront. Rather they think it reflects an attempt to further an abhorrent point of view and agenda. I disagree with them about said POV or agenda being abhorrent, but I'm not going to caricature them into utter morons for it.

|2.13.06 @ 2:01PM|#

Rather they think it reflects an attempt to further an abhorrent point of view and agenda. I disagree with them about said POV or agenda being abhorrent, but I'm not going to caricature them into utter morons for it.

I will, since I think bigotry is moronic. Specifically, they can't come up with a single argument for why they are so afraid of gay people--it all boils down to either "I've been told by my pastor that it is bad, though I can't say who exactly is harmed," or they resort to dishonest comparisons, like "let people have gay sex today and next thing you know pedophilia and bestiality will be accepted, too."

|2.13.06 @ 3:14PM|#

Quote or no quote, I thought that once you've ordered a latte at Starbucks, you've de facto converted to the gay lifestyle anyway.

(Just kidding! I've had more than my share of mochas and stuff myself.) (Also, I apologize if someone else already made a quip along these lines; I haven't had time to read the thread yet.)

Mike Laursen|2.13.06 @ 4:12PM|#

At IN 'N' OUT (a West Coast burger chain), the words "John 3:16" are on the bottom of every drink cup. It's always seemed to me that putting the words on the BOTTOM of the cups would be offensive to born-again Christians. There's that other Bible verse about not hiding one's light under a bushel.

Rich Ard|2.13.06 @ 7:35PM|#

Mike, that's there because if you pour your coffee on your lap, you gots to pray.

Jennifer, andy...chill. :)